Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[Val1]

Great post! You are reminding me of so many of the details!

OPs story was found to be unbelievable by that magistrate that handled his bail hearing and he said as much at the end. Does anyone recall all if the open questions (in his mind) that he read off in front of OP on the final day? Those will certainly have to be addressed in OPs testimony.

Not per se but this had the conditions:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/oscar-pistorius-granted-bail-murder-case/story?id=18563714

The court set bail at about $113,000 (1 million rand) and June 4 as the date for Pistorius' next court appearance.

The other bail conditions are: Pistorius cannot leave the country; he must hand over his passports; he cannot return to his home as long as it's an active crime scene; he needs permission to leave the Pretoria area; he must visit a police station on a daily basis and be available to a probation officer at all times via cellphone; he is not allowed any communication with prosecution witnesses; he cannot drink alcohol; and he must relinquish his firearms.

Hmm, I could have sworn I'd read articles saying he'd been out partying and drinking since then...

 

[Viper]

There is nothing Freudian about a proven Schadenfreude center in the brain. Rather the opposite. I have always written here about medical conditions underlying behavioral anomalies. [Not that I use that as a legal excuse. It is far more complex.]

You could have looked that up before saying what you did. It's a proven physical fact. Never been anything "Freudian" in anything I have posted here or said in my life.

No need for the sarcasm. If you don't comprehend something don't assume, please look it up first.

Perhaps I can shed some light, there seems to be confusion here! Schadenfreude is the pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.

 

[Viper]

OP has reacted so emotionally to some of the testimony so far, how is he going to react if he's put on the stand?

Calm, cool, and collected. To even think about putting him on the stand Roux would have to have spent days or weeks preparing OP to answer a host of questions with very specific answers, and he cannot do that if he is an emotional basket case. If he was really upset at the sight of images of Reeva's dead body or when the murder is described by others he won't be when he testifies. Throw in a couple of Zanax for good measure. And if you believe he has some psychological complex of superiority, and I do, then he will see it as a challenge and enjoy the whole event!

 

[Interested Bystander]

there are numerous such evidences on record. I've cited the NY Times article by Sokolove where he said OP drove him at 155 mph in the rain and tailgated.

We know from June Steenkamp that Oscar was speeding and refused to slow down as Reeva implored him, and only did so when June threatened him.
Plenty on record that Oscar liked to watch his passengers squirm in fear. This is either schadendfreude or sadism.

But you seem to ignore my main point.
From testimony of Dr. Burger about the matter of fact tone of the male voice mocking the female's cries for help--Oscar was NOT in a state of rage when he shot and killed Reeva.

I don't consider tailgating sadistic, just plain stupid in the "boy racer" context but I confess to knowing very little in depth about sadism. Definitely not an area of expertise.

Sadism to me is deriving of pleasure from physical cruelty (sexual or otherwise) but equally it could be mental cruelty and I can see how you would come to that conclusion.

If he was mocking RS that could be construed as mental cruelty but all of us are grasping at straws and interpreting it in our own way and possibly from our own experiences. If he was not in a rage why did Mrs Van der Merwe testify she could hear raised voices as though there was a fight? I really don't think she made it up.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Still trying to get my head around the toilet scenario and how the defence is going to explain it.

RS is first shot while standing in the cubicle facing the door. She has her pants pulled up. If she got up to go to the loo, one if the following must have happened:

1. She got up and went to the loo, but she didn't flush.(However, there was no paper in the toilet bowl as far as I could see from crime scene photos. Does any woman pee and not use paper or something else ie water afterwards?)
2. She got up and went to the loo, and she flushed. In which case OP must have heard the cistern filling and would surely not have concluded it was a burglar taking a leak.
3. She got up but before she had a pee she hears OP shouting so she forgets about the need to pee and stays in the cubicle, possibly locking the door as a result. So how come her bladder is empty?

I made all these points yesterday and am troubled that the prosecution have not made more of this . The empty bladder coupled with a clean toilet pan except for the blood disproves his version of events . There was not enough time lapse for Reeva to be in the position that she was allegedly shot in . My best estimation is that she would still have been mid flow or just finishing when he shot her and we know for sure that is not the case because of the toilet. She was shot facing the door fully clothed . Which means the toilet would have had to have been flushed and the cistern refilled. ( It takes over a minute for a cistern to refill ) this would have been a very distinct sound and not one you could reasonably confuse with what an intruder . Are we seriously expected to believe that he didn't hear a flushing toilet but heard movement and a window sliding . A sliding window makes far less noise than a flushing toilet.
The other point I made was with regard to her jeans .They must have been thrown out of the open window by either OP or Reeva herself. This points to a disagreement between them .
To get things clear in my own mind I timed things for myself several times . It simply is not possible for the toilet to have been used and the cistern refilled in the short time frame his version allows from coming inside to shooting Reeva.

 

[Trooper]

It is only Oscars story that she went to the toilet to empty her bladder.. who knows why she went there?? considering she died there, standing up, with her shorts pulled up , facing the door, and not the toilet, there is no need to take Oscar's reconstruction on board.

 

[Cherwell]

I made all these points yesterday and am troubled that the prosecution have not made more of this .

I don't think there's been an appropriate moment yet. It is something that should be put to OP if he testifies, but otherwise it's hard to see how it could be brought in as part of the prosecution case as there is no other witness who could be called on the matter. Nel could also refer to it in his closing speech.

 

[soozieqtips]

It is only Oscars story that she went to the toilet to empty her bladder.. who knows why she went there?? considering she died there, standing up, with her shorts pulled up , facing the door, and not the toilet, there is no need to take Oscar's reconstruction on board.

We know she had an empty bladder, or almost empty, but she could have gone to the toilet half an hour before for all we know, unless the bladder would have been fuller if she'd gone earlier? All I know is that trying to work things around OP's theory is quite difficult.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

It is only Oscars story that she went to the toilet to empty her bladder.. who knows why she went there?? considering she died there, standing up, with her shorts pulled up , facing the door, and not the toilet, there is no need to take Oscar's reconstruction on board.

That is correct , so disproving his story would help the prosecution case .
I think she may have been in there quite a while but had definitely used the toilet because of the empty bladder.
If you look at the blood on the pan it has dried dark red . If the blood had dropped onto a recently flushed wet toilet it would likely look more diluted ?

 

[Trooper]

OP has reacted so emotionally to some of the testimony so far, how is he going to react if he's put on the stand?

I am more concerned with the effect his vomiting had on the people in the gallery and the courthouse...

people were making sudden dashes for the door, the Singing Ladies of the National Womens League couldn't continue their musical protest against Violence towards Women. even the judges clerk went green and burst into tears..

the witness. Dr Saayman who had to testify thru it all stoically and sternly turned his face towards the judge only and with the most delicate courtesy would wait until a big retch had diminished before continuing his testimony..


Someone can attach a bucket to Oscars legs. he can drag it to the dock with him he'll be alright.. There has been some really graphic photos shown since, and he has managed to keep his breakfast and lunch down during those .. whatever they are giving him is working..

All that needs to be done is a big box of whatever it is he is dosed with is kept easily reached. and hopefully, easily inducted into his internal plumbing.

 

[Trooper]

That is correct , so disproving his story would help the prosecution case .
I think she may have been in there quite a while but had definitely used the toilet because of the empty bladder.
If you look at the blood on the pan it has dried dark red . If the blood had dropped onto a recently flushed wet toilet it would likely look more diluted ?

that is a scenario that God has spared me from contemplating, GB..

until now.. :facepalm:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

We know she had an empty bladder, or almost empty, but she could have gone to the toilet half an hour before for all we know, unless the bladder would have been fuller if she'd gone earlier? All I know is that trying to work things around OP's theory is quite difficult.

Yes I fully agree she could have gone to the toilet half an hour before but then that is a further stretch of the imagination to assume that she had got up ,gone to the toilet flushed it and come back to bed without waking him .

 

[Gbtaketwo]

that is a scenario that God has spared me from contemplating, GB..

until now.. :facepalm:

I won't go into the gory details of why I know what new blood looks like on a wet
Toilet pan !! Believe me it doesn't dry like that .

 

[Trooper]

We know she had an empty bladder, or almost empty, but she could have gone to the toilet half an hour before for all we know, unless the bladder would have been fuller if she'd gone earlier? All I know is that trying to work things around OP's theory is quite difficult.

how does OSCAR know she went to the toilet to pee?? he doesn't. She never spoke!!.. She might have been unable to sleep and went in there to read a magazine from the rack ( which she fell onto when he shot her and completely broke her hip bone) doesn't want to turn the light on in the bedroom, closes the door so the light doesn't disturb anyone. this is all theory, but its just as likely as Oscars story.

 

[steveml]

That is correct , so disproving his story would help the prosecution case .
I think she may have been in there quite a while but had definitely used the toilet because of the empty bladder.
If you look at the blood on the pan it has dried dark red . If the blood had dropped onto a recently flushed wet toilet it would likely look more diluted ?

We really have no way of knowing whether she used the toilet. It cannot be proven that she used tissue when she used the toilet. Even if there was urine and blood in the toilet bowl we still would not know when she last used the toilet.

Scenario: Reeva is last one to use toilet after Yoga during evening, forgets or doesn't flush toilet. At the time of shooting blood and Reeva's urine would both be present in the the toilet bowl. Result: No knowledge of exact time Reeva used toilet.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

how does OSCAR know she went to the toilet to pee?? he doesn't. She never spoke!!.. She might have been unable to sleep and went in there to read a magazine from the rack ( which she fell onto when he shot her and completely broke her hip bone) doesn't want to turn the light on in the bedroom, closes the door so the light doesn't disturb anyone. this is all theory, but its just as likely as Oscars story.

This is true but as her bladder was virtually empty she must have been to the toilet sometime in the hour before her death or there would have been more urine in her bladder. If she was reading a magazine she would have had the light on ?
For the prosecution to prove there case it is surely better for them to disprove his version and at the same time prove what they believe happened .

 

[Trooper]

maybe that's why he shot her. she didn't flush the toilet.

women have been shot to hell for less.

 

[weeeva]

Quick question for anyone that believes that OP actually thought that an intruder had used a ladder to climb into an upstairs bathroom window...............why on earth would an intruder go through the trouble of dealing with not only two dogs but also a ladder into a second floor bathroom window that would possibly be inside of a bedroom at night when the house occupants could be asleep in that bedroom when there is a broken window on the ground floor that provides easier access?

There are to many red flags that have not yet been answered. OP is going to have to testify to explain (or try to) those red flags away. Otherwise he can kiss his freedom goodbye.

MOO

I won't say I actually believe OP's version but I am keeping an open mind. I don't think that people who believe they are in a potentially life threatening situation would stop to analyse such things as --why didn't the dog bark, why didn't I hear the ladders or why is the intruder in the bathroom and not in the kitchen etc.
Self preservation would come before all that.

 

[Trooper]

This is true but as her bladder was virtually empty she must have been to the toilet sometime in the hour before her death or there would have been more urine in her bladder. If she was reading a magazine she would have had the light on ?
For the prosecution to prove there case it is surely better for them to disprove his version and at the time prove theirs ?

I don't think anyone has to prove that Reeva piddled or didn't. the bare fact is, she left the bed.. ( if she was ever in it, that's Oscars story) and at some stage , under her own steam, ( that's most likely unless he frogmarched her in there ) was standing facing the closed door with her shorts pulled up. And then was plugged with 4 black talon bullets.

that's it.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

We really have no way of knowing whether she used the toilet. It cannot be proven that she used tissue when she used the toilet. Even if there was urine and blood in the toilet bowl we still would not know when she last used the toilet.

Scenario: Reeva is last one to use toilet after Yoga during evening, forgets or doesn't flush toilet. At the time of shooting blood and Reeva's urine would both be present in the the toilet bowl. Result: No knowledge of exact time Reeva used toilet.

Agreed but it would be highly unusual for a lady not to use tissue particularly when spending the night with a boyfriend as valentines morning approaches.
I still think it would have very important to have proof to the toilet contents to help timescale and his version of events .

The empty bladder does give some indication . You can't have an empty bladder in the middle of the night without having been to the loo or having a medical problem . I am viewing the toilet scenario as important to disprove his version that they went to bed at 10o'clock. As I said earlier she would have had to have got up to go to the toilet without him hearing just before he went out for the fans which seems unlikely but maybe not impossible .